Legal Opinion · Dissent

Douglas v. Pontiac General Hospital

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1990No. Docket 103335Published

1DissentJ. M. Batzer, J.

I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff argues that defendant Baker is not entitled to governmental immunity because he was not an agent of the hospital and because his negligence consisted of ministerial rather than discretionary acts. I disagree.

Agents of a governmental entity are entitled to governmental immunity for discretionary acts performed within the scope of their authority in good faith. Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 633-634; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). I reject plaintiff’s argument that defendant Baker’s status as an independent contractor precludes Baker from…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ross v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Tuttle v. Embury-Martin Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Canon v. ThumudoMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Howard v. ParkMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
  5. Van Pelt v. PaullMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API